------=_Part_15951_1001520.1143580617848
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/24/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I would like to have the most up to date version in the Rulebook.
> I think version 2.1.5 is ready for 'general play test'.


If the plan is to have a version 2.2 or 3.0 out in only a couple of months
-- and that we'd want everyone to be play-testing that new version -- then
what is the value in having 2.1.5 in the rulebook?

The rules only get re-published every 12-18+ months, which would mean havin=
g
an outdated version in the rules to trap the unwary for the next year or
more.

Would it not be better to have a note in the Rules regarding the current
state of Rune (i.e that it is in development and new versions are entering
paly-test), and copies of the most up to date version made available at
Guild meetings and on-line in printable form (pdf).

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_15951_1001520.1143580617848
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/24/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><spa=
n class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
<br>I would like to have the most up to date version in the Rulebook.<br>I =
think version 2.1.5 is ready for 'general play test'.</blockquote><div><br>=
If the plan is to have a version 2.2 or 3.0 out in only a couple of months =
-- and that we'd want everyone to be play-testing that new version -- then =
what is the value in having=20
2.1.5 in the rulebook?<br><br>The rules only get re-published every 12-18+ =
months, which would mean having an outdated version in the rules to trap th=
e unwary for the next year or more.<br><br>Would it not be better to have a=
 note in the Rules regarding the current state of Rune (
i.e that it is in development and new versions are entering paly-test), and=
 copies of the most up to date version made available at Guild meetings and=
 on-line in printable form (pdf).&nbsp; <br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div>=
</div>
<br>

------=_Part_15951_1001520.1143580617848--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Martin said:
>If the plan is to have a version 2.2 or 3.0 out in only a couple of
months -- and that we'd want everyone to be
> play-testing that new version -- then what is the value in having 2.1.5 in
the rulebook?

Given that it has taken close to 11 years to get from verion 1.0 to 1.1 to
2.1.4 to 2.1.5 and its not even in the rulebook, I do hope that we can
quickly move to verion 3.0 but I think that a large range of problems can
come up (and may) as it seems that none of the people working on Rune in the
past 11 years wanted to fail.

>The rules only get re-published every 12-18+ months, which would mean
having an outdated version in the
>rules to trap the unwary for the next year or more.

I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better than a place holder or
1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our case and that this is the
best we can do.

>Would it not be better to have a note in the Rules regarding the current
state of Rune ( i.e that it is in
>development and new versions are entering paly-test), and copies of the
most up to date version made available
>at Guild meetings and on-line in printable form (pdf).

I am as a GM happy to use a copy which is a bit out of date, but the real
advantage is to move all the players and GMs forward to a common 2.1.5 as
the bottom level of Rune.

Jono


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

So it's out of date.

Big fat hairy deal.

What are you worried about? That a player might burst into tears because the
rulebook isn't the Word of God?

Jim

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

>
> Would it not be better to have a note in the Rules regarding the current
> state of Rune (i.e that it is in development and new versions are entering
> paly-test), and copies of the most up to date version made available at
> Guild meetings and on-line in printable form (pdf).
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

------=_Part_16639_11395693.1143586153209
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better than a place holder or
> 1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our case and that this is
> the
> best we can do.


I didn't suggest leaving the current 1.1 in there.

Let's have 2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to 2.2 or 3.0 when that is
available.

What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound into the 2006 rulebook?

- Martin

------=_Part_16639_11395693.1143586153209
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><spa=
n class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
<br>I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better than a place holder o=
r<br>1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our case and that this i=
s the<br>best we can do.</blockquote><div><br>I didn't suggest leaving the =
current=20
1.1 in there.<br><br>Let's have 2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to 2.2 =
or 3.0 when that is available.<br><br>What's the point then of having 2.1.5=
 bound into the 2006 rulebook?<br><br>- Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_16639_11395693.1143586153209--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

------=_Part_16731_27184331.1143586933317
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> What are you worried about? That a player might burst into tears because
> the
> rulebook isn't the Word of God?


We've tried for a number of years to ensure that the rules published in the
book represent the (official) versions in play -- with playtest rules being
the normal exception to this.

If it was intended that 2.1.5 was going to be in play for the next year or
so then -- despite it not being an official version -- I'd be all for
putting it in the book.

However, Rune working group's stated aim has been to obsolete it in the nex=
t
couple of months.

Given that 2.1.5 is a play-test version and will be superseded shortly, it
doesn't seem worth the probable confusion to publish it as part of the
"official" rules.

- Martin

------=_Part_16731_27184331.1143586933317
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auck=
land.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002=
@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">What are y=
ou worried about? That a player might burst into tears because the<br>ruleb=
ook isn't the Word of God?
</blockquote><div><br>We've tried for a number of years to ensure that the =
rules published in the book represent the (official) versions in play -- wi=
th playtest rules being the normal exception to this.<br><br>If it was inte=
nded that=20
2.1.5 was going to be in play for the next year or so then -- despite it no=
t being an official version -- I'd be all for putting it in the book.<br><b=
r>However, Rune working group's stated aim has been to obsolete it in the n=
ext couple of months.
<br><br>Given that 2.1.5 is a play-test version and will be superseded shor=
tly, it doesn't seem worth the probable confusion to publish it as part of =
the &quot;official&quot; rules.<br><br>- Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_16731_27184331.1143586933317--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C65320.83B342A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Martin asked:
What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound into the 2006 rulebook?

Its a printed copy.
Its not online.
Its not a lose bit of paper not going to get lost (without losing the rest
of the book).
Its common to all games/players/GMs with a new Rulebook.

Jono

  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:49 a.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?


  On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:

    I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better than a place holder or
    1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our case and that this is
the
    best we can do.

  I didn't suggest leaving the current 1.1 in there.

  Let's have 2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to 2.2 or 3.0 when that is
available.



  - Martin



------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C65320.83B342A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Martin=20
asked:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006>What's the point then of having =
2.1.5 bound=20
into the 2006 rulebook?</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Its&nbsp;a printed copy.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Its=20
not online.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Its=20
not a lose bit of paper not going to get lost (without losing the rest =
of the=20
book).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Its&nbsp;common to all games/players/GMs with a new=20
Rulebook.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Jono</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D078375922-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Martin=20
  Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:49 =
a.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for=20
  rulebook?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 3/29/06, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername>Jonathan=20
  Bean - TME</B> &lt;<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</A>&gt; wrote:
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote></SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><BR>I=20
    think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better than a place holder=20
    or<BR>1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our case and =
that this=20
    is the<BR>best we can do.</BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>I didn't suggest leaving the current 1.1 in =
there.<BR><BR>Let's have=20
  2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to 2.2 or 3.0 when that is=20
  available.<BR><BR><BR><BR>-=20
Martin<BR></DIV></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C65320.83B342A0--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

One of the purposes of the rule book is as a resource for people who might want
to use the college as it stands.

So long as its clear that it's not going to be played and that it's subject to
change, where is the harm?

That was a rhetorical question. I'm completely uninterested in a reply.

Let us assume that the readership of the rule book are capable of making the
intellectual leap required to realise that Rune is not intended to be played
outside of a playtest, and put the damned thing in the book so everyone knows
our latest point of development.

Jim.

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > What are you worried about? That a player might burst into tears because
> > the
> > rulebook isn't the Word of God?
>
>
> We've tried for a number of years to ensure that the rules published in the
> book represent the (official) versions in play -- with playtest rules being
> the normal exception to this.
>
> If it was intended that 2.1.5 was going to be in play for the next year or
> so then -- despite it not being an official version -- I'd be all for
> putting it in the book.
>
> However, Rune working group's stated aim has been to obsolete it in the next
> couple of months.
>
> Given that 2.1.5 is a play-test version and will be superseded shortly, it
> doesn't seem worth the probable confusion to publish it as part of the
> "official" rules.
>
> - Martin
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

------=_Part_16843_10567768.1143588165286
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Martin asked:
> What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound into the 2006 rulebook?
>
> Its common to all games/players/GMs with a new Rulebook.
>

Precisely.

The recommended playtest version today is 2.1.5

The preferred playtest version in a couple of months will be 2.2 or 3.0 --
at which point we'll be wanting people to play that and NOT 2.1.5.

This will be easier if 2.1.5 is not bound into the 2006 rules.

- Martin

------=_Part_16843_10567768.1143588165286
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><spa=
n class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
<div style=3D"direction: ltr;">




<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Martin=20
asked:</font></span></div></div><div style=3D"direction: ltr;"><span class=
=3D"q">
<div><span>What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound=20
into the 2006 rulebook?</span></div>
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"></font></span>=
&nbsp;</div></span></div><div style=3D"direction: ltr;"><div><span><font co=
lor=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Its&nbsp;common to all games/play=
ers/GMs with a new=20
Rulebook.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Precisely. <br></d=
iv><br><div>The recommended playtest version today is 2.1.5<br>
<br>
The preferred playtest version in a couple of months will be 2.2 or 3.0
-- at which point we'll be wanting people to play that and NOT 2.1.5.<br>
<br>
This will be easier if 2.1.5 is not bound into the 2006 rules.<br><br>- Mar=
tin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_16843_10567768.1143588165286--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

So?

Who cares. The rule book gets reprinted regularly. If there is a new playable
version, it will end up in the book, replacing the play test version.

If the play test never gets finished, then at least there is a version that is
accessible, and there won't be any mucking around with people vaguely recalling
a discussion about how rune weapon was supposed to work, blah, blah, blah.

You are worrying about saving maybe a two pages and a little bit of ink. The
economy can withstand the assault.

Jim.


Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Martin asked:
> > What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound into the 2006 rulebook?
> >
> > Its common to all games/players/GMs with a new Rulebook.
> >
>
> Precisely.
>
> The recommended playtest version today is 2.1.5
>
> The preferred playtest version in a couple of months will be 2.2 or 3.0 --
> at which point we'll be wanting people to play that and NOT 2.1.5.
>
> This will be easier if 2.1.5 is not bound into the 2006 rules.
>
> - Martin
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C652BF.48437750
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

In six months it will be actively misleading.

Info that is _slightly_ harder to access (it's not like it's going to change
more than once or twice a quarter) is better than having wrong information
easily available IMO. People are lazy, they will use what is in front of
them in preference to putting effort in. 

Having something 'common to all' that soon becomes not common WILL cause
confusion.
This isn't helped by 2.1.5 having introduced new ideas (e.g. sending people
through Rune Portals with Banishment) which may be quickly rejected in
practice.

Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean - TME
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:04
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?


Martin asked:
What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound into the 2006 rulebook?

Its a printed copy.
Its not online.
Its not a lose bit of paper not going to get lost (without losing the rest
of the book).
Its common to all games/players/GMs with a new Rulebook.

Jono

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:49 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?


On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote: 

I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better than a place holder or
1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our case and that this is the
best we can do.

I didn't suggest leaving the current 1.1 in there.

Let's have 2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to 2.2 or 3.0 when that is
available.



- Martin

------_=_NextPart_001_01C652BF.48437750
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>In six months it will be actively misleading.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Info that is _slightly_ harder to access (it's not =
like it's going to change more than once or twice a quarter) is better =
than having wrong information easily available IMO. People are lazy, =
they will use what is in front of them in preference to putting effort =
in. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Having something 'common to all' that soon becomes =
not common WILL cause confusion.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>This isn't helped by 2.1.5 having introduced new =
ideas (e.g. sending people through Rune Portals with Banishment) which =
may be quickly rejected in practice.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of Jonathan Bean - TME</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:04</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Martin asked:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound into the =
2006 rulebook?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Its a printed copy.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Its not online.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Its not a lose bit of paper not going to get lost =
(without losing the rest of the book).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Its common to all games/players/GMs with a new =
Rulebook.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jono</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of Martin Dickson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:49 a.m.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME =
&lt;Jonathan@tme.co.nz&gt; wrote: </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better =
than a place holder or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our =
case and that this is the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>best we can do.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I didn't suggest leaving the current 1.1 in =
there.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Let's have 2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to 2.2 =
or 3.0 when that is available.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>- Martin</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C652BF.48437750--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C65324.208E69D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Martin said and is correct:
However, Rune working group's stated aim has been to obsolete it in the next
couple of months.

This is the aim is to get Rune 3.0 out in the next couple of months, making
rune 2.1.5 obsolete.
I hope this will happen and I am attempting to work to this end.

However as we all know real life and other things often come up.
Rune has been worked on for 11ish years with limited results.
Given the track record of Rune I feel it is wise to put 2.1.5 into
'play-test' in the rulebook as a standard.
I hope/expect most of the Runes efforts will be directed at 3.0 not 2.2 and
its a bigger fish to fry, and will take time.

I am pleased that someone other than me has faith/hope that 3.0 can come out
within a few months, but I am realistic that it *could* take more time,
maybe even years for it to be fully settled on as a working 'play test'
version.

The main reason for this is that 3.0 is aimed at a major re-write/change in
direction and flavour and re-focus of Rune.
Rune 2.1.5 was not intended to make or take this step.

Jono

  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:02 a.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?


  On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
    What are you worried about? That a player might burst into tears because
the
    rulebook isn't the Word of God?

  We've tried for a number of years to ensure that the rules published in
the book represent the (official) versions in play -- with playtest rules
being the normal exception to this.

  If it was intended that 2.1.5 was going to be in play for the next year or
so then -- despite it not being an official version -- I'd be all for
putting it in the book.

  However, Rune working group's stated aim has been to obsolete it in the
next couple of months.

  Given that 2.1.5 is a play-test version and will be superseded shortly, it
doesn't seem worth the probable confusion to publish it as part of the
"official" rules.

  - Martin



------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C65324.208E69D0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D377002023-28032006>Martin=20
said and is correct:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><SPAN class=3D377002023-28032006>However, Rune working =
group's stated=20
aim has been to obsolete it in the next couple of months. =
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D377002023-28032006>This=20
is the aim is to get Rune 3.0 out in the next couple of months, making =
rune=20
2.1.5 obsolete.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D377002023-28032006>I hope=20
this will happen and I am attempting to work to this =
end.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006>However as we all know real life and other =
things often=20
come up.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D377002023-28032006>Rune=20
has been worked on for 11ish years with limited =
results.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D377002023-28032006>Given=20
the track record of Rune I feel it is wise to put 2.1.5 into 'play-test' =
in the=20
rulebook as a&nbsp;standard.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D377002023-28032006>I=20
hope/expect&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006>most of the Runes efforts will be directed at =
3.0 not=20
2.2 and its a bigger fish to fry, and will take =
time.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT><SPAN class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D377002023-28032006>I am pleased that someone =
other than me=20
has faith/hope that 3.0 can come out within a few months, but I am =
realistic=20
that it *could* take more time, maybe even&nbsp;years for it to be fully =
settled=20
on as a working 'play test' version.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D377002023-28032006>The=20
main reason for this is that 3.0 is aimed at a major re-write/change in=20
direction and flavour and re-focus of Rune.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006>Rune&nbsp;2.1.5 was not intended to make or =
take this=20
step.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D377002023-28032006>Jono</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Martin=20
  Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:02 =
a.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for=20
  rulebook?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 3/29/06, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername><A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A></=
B>=20
  &lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A>&g=
t;=20
  wrote:
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote></SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">What=20
    are you worried about? That a player might burst into tears because=20
    the<BR>rulebook isn't the Word of God? </BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>We've tried for a number of years to ensure that the rules =
published=20
  in the book represent the (official) versions in play -- with playtest =
rules=20
  being the normal exception to this.<BR><BR>If it was intended that =
2.1.5 was=20
  going to be in play for the next year or so then -- despite it not =
being an=20
  official version -- I'd be all for putting it in the =
book.<BR><BR>However,=20
  Rune working group's stated aim has been to obsolete it in the next =
couple of=20
  months. <BR><BR>Given that 2.1.5 is a play-test version and will be =
superseded=20
  shortly, it doesn't seem worth the probable confusion to publish it as =
part of=20
  the "official" rules.<BR><BR>-=20
Martin<BR></DIV></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C65324.208E69D0--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Do you intend to police the industry of the people who play this game, through
the medium of a rule book?

I didn't know that that was your brief.

Even if that were the case, to predict the direction in which they are going to
be most lazy would be the kind of skill that would have you wasted in any other
employment than directing the Reserve Bank.

The best any normal mortal can do is to provide a resource that a sensible
person is going to take as provisional.

You are under no obligation to do everyone ele's thinking for them, Errol. In
fact, stop doing mine for me. I do it better than you do.

Jim.





Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>:

> In six months it will be actively misleading.
>
> Info that is _slightly_ harder to access (it's not like it's going to change
> more than once or twice a quarter) is better than having wrong information
> easily available IMO. People are lazy, they will use what is in front of
> them in preference to putting effort in.
>
> Having something 'common to all' that soon becomes not common WILL cause
> confusion.
> This isn't helped by 2.1.5 having introduced new ideas (e.g. sending people
> through Rune Portals with Banishment) which may be quickly rejected in
> practice.
>
> Cheers
> Errol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Bean - TME
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:04
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
>
>
> Martin asked:
> What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound into the 2006 rulebook?
>
> Its a printed copy.
> Its not online.
> Its not a lose bit of paper not going to get lost (without losing the rest
> of the book).
> Its common to all games/players/GMs with a new Rulebook.
>
> Jono
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Martin Dickson
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:49 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
>
>
> On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better than a place holder or
> 1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our case and that this is the
> best we can do.
>
> I didn't suggest leaving the current 1.1 in there.
>
> Let's have 2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to 2.2 or 3.0 when that is
> available.
>
>
>
> - Martin
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C65325.998392B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?Errol said:
In six months it will be actively misleading.

No in 6 months it may be misleading. This is clearly not a given. Its been a
long time getting to this point.
Given the track record it should be around 7 years before we get to the next
step.

I do not want to see a place holder or simple referance to the wiki. I want
to see a copy of Rune in the rulebook for me as a GM to use.

I would prefure that the most up to date one goes in but its not a big deal
put Rune 1.1 in if you want.
But the Rulebook IMDO must have a printed copy of Rune in it.

IMDO I would like to see 2.1.5 in it.
Jono
  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Errol Cavit
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:28 a.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?


  In six months it will be actively misleading.

  Info that is _slightly_ harder to access (it's not like it's going to
change more than once or twice a quarter) is better than having wrong
information easily available IMO. People are lazy, they will use what is in
front of them in preference to putting effort in.

  Having something 'common to all' that soon becomes not common WILL cause
confusion.
  This isn't helped by 2.1.5 having introduced new ideas (e.g. sending
people through Rune Portals with Banishment) which may be quickly rejected
in practice.

  Cheers
  Errol

  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean - TME
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:04
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?



  Martin asked:
  What's the point then of having 2.1.5 bound into the 2006 rulebook?

  Its a printed copy.
  Its not online.
  Its not a lose bit of paper not going to get lost (without losing the rest
of the book).
  Its common to all games/players/GMs with a new Rulebook.

  Jono

  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:49 a.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?



  On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:

  I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better than a place holder or
  1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do get old in our case and that this is
the
  best we can do.

  I didn't suggest leaving the current 1.1 in there.

  Let's have 2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to 2.2 or 3.0 when that is
available.




  - Martin

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C65325.998392B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222333423-28032006><FONT size=3D2>Errol =
said:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In six months it will be actively misleading.<FONT =
size=3D3>=20
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D222333423-28032006>No in=20
6 months it may be misleading. This is clearly not a given. Its been a =
long time=20
getting to this point.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D222333423-28032006>Given=20
the track record it should be around 7 years before we get to the next=20
step.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D222333423-28032006>I do not want to see a place =
holder or=20
simple referance to the wiki. I want to see a copy of Rune in the =
rulebook for=20
me as a GM to use.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D222333423-28032006>I=20
would prefure that the most up to date one goes in but its not a big =
deal put=20
Rune 1.1 in if you want.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D222333423-28032006>But the Rulebook IMDO must =
have a printed=20
copy of Rune in it.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D222333423-28032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D222333423-28032006>IMDO I=20
would like to see 2.1.5 in it.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D222333423-28032006>Jono</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Errol =
Cavit<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:28 a.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for=20
  rulebook?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>In six months it will be actively misleading.</FONT> =
</P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Info that is _slightly_ harder to access (it's not =
like it's=20
  going to change more than once or twice a quarter) is better than =
having wrong=20
  information easily available IMO. People are lazy, they will use what =
is in=20
  front of them in preference to putting effort in. </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Having something 'common to all' that soon becomes =
not common=20
  WILL cause confusion.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>This isn't helped by =
2.1.5=20
  having introduced new ideas (e.g. sending people through Rune Portals =
with=20
  Banishment) which may be quickly rejected in practice.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>From:=20
  dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On=
 Behalf=20
  Of Jonathan Bean - TME</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, 29 =
March 2006=20
  11:04</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</FONT> =
</P><BR>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Martin asked:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>What's the =
point then of=20
  having 2.1.5 bound into the 2006 rulebook?</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Its a printed copy.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Its =
not=20
  online.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Its not a lose bit of paper not =
going to get=20
  lost (without losing the rest of the book).</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>Its common=20
  to all games/players/GMs with a new Rulebook.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Jono</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>From:=20
  dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On=
 Behalf=20
  Of Martin Dickson</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, 29 March =
2006 10:49=20
  a.m.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</FONT> =
</P><BR>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>On 3/29/06, Jonathan Bean - TME =
&lt;Jonathan@tme.co.nz&gt;=20
  wrote: </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>I think even an out of date 2.1.5 would be better =
than a place=20
  holder or</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>1.0/1.1 verion. I think a books do =
get old=20
  in our case and that this is the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>best we can =

  do.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>I didn't suggest leaving the current 1.1 in =
there.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Let's have 2.1.5 in play -- and plan to change to =
2.2 or 3.0=20
  when that is available.</FONT> </P><BR><BR>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>- Martin</FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C65325.998392B0--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

------=_Part_16919_2317754.1143589562505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> So?
>
> Who cares. The rule book gets reprinted regularly. If there is a new
> playable
> version, it will end up in the book, replacing the play test version.


I thought you were uninterested in a reply about the possible harm.

You are worrying about saving maybe a two pages and a little bit of ink. Th=
e
> economy can withstand the assault.


Actually no.  I'm more concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will mak=
e
it harder to move to 3.0.

- Martin

------=_Part_16919_2317754.1143589562505
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auck=
land.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002=
@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">So?<br><br=
>Who cares. The rule book gets reprinted regularly. If there is a new playa=
ble
<br>version, it will end up in the book, replacing the play test version.</=
blockquote><div><br>I thought you were uninterested in a reply about the po=
ssible harm.<br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border=
-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-lef=
t: 1ex;">
You are worrying about saving maybe a two pages and a little bit of ink. Th=
e<br>economy can withstand the assault.</blockquote><div><br>Actually no.&n=
bsp; I'm more concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will make it hard=
er to move to=20
3.0.<br><br>- Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_16919_2317754.1143589562505--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C65326.86E40170
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Martin said:
Actually no.  I'm more concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will make
it harder to move to 3.0.

Given that we currently have Rune 1.1 in the rulebook, how will it make it
harder?

Jono

  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:46 a.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?


  On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
    So?

    Who cares. The rule book gets reprinted regularly. If there is a new
playable
    version, it will end up in the book, replacing the play test version.

  I thought you were uninterested in a reply about the possible harm.



    You are worrying about saving maybe a two pages and a little bit of ink.
The
    economy can withstand the assault.

  Actually no.  I'm more concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will
make it harder to move to 3.0.


------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C65326.86E40170
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D651234423-28032006>Martin=20
said:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#000000 size=3D3>Actually no.&nbsp; I'm =
more=20
concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will make it harder to move =
to=20
3.0.</FONT><SPAN class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Given=20
that we currently have Rune 1.1 in the rulebook, how will it make it=20
harder?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D651234423-28032006>Jono</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Martin=20
  Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:46 =
a.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for=20
  rulebook?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 3/29/06, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername><A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A></=
B>=20
  &lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A>&g=
t;=20
  wrote:
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote></SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">So?<BR><BR>Who=20
    cares. The rule book gets reprinted regularly. If there is a new =
playable=20
    <BR>version, it will end up in the book, replacing the play test=20
  version.</BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>I thought you were uninterested in a reply about the possible =

  harm.<BR></DIV><BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">You=20
    are worrying about saving maybe a two pages and a little bit of ink. =

    The<BR>economy can withstand the assault.</BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>Actually no.&nbsp; I'm more concerned that having 2.1.5 in =
the=20
  rulebook will make it harder to move to 3.0.<SPAN=20
  class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D651234423-28032006>&nbsp;</SPAN><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BO=
DY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C65326.86E40170--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > So?
> >
> > Who cares. The rule book gets reprinted regularly. If there is a new
> > playable
> > version, it will end up in the book, replacing the play test version.
>
>
> I thought you were uninterested in a reply about the possible harm.

If you read it as anything other than contempt, I can point you to a few places
you can brush your English up on.

>
> You are worrying about saving maybe a two pages and a little bit of ink. The
> > economy can withstand the assault.
>
>
> Actually no.  I'm more concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will make
> it harder to move to 3.0.

You worry too much about rubbish. Putting an up to date version in the rule book
will have no effect, one way or the other, on whether or not it becomes a part
of the game. It simply means that DMs have some reasonably clear idea of what
the game supports.

It's just a damned college write up, for God's sake. Worry about our military
commitment to Afghanistan or global warming. You can't do much about them, but
at least you'd be worrying about something that had more value.

Jim.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

------=_Part_16995_2604595.1143590921234
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> If you read it as anything other than contempt, I can point you to a few
> places
> you can brush your English up on.


Fine. Contempt. There seems little further point then in responding to your
posts, rhetorical or not.

------=_Part_16995_2604595.1143590921234
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/29/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auck=
land.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002=
@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">If you rea=
d it as anything other than contempt, I can point you to a few places<br>yo=
u can brush your English up on.
</blockquote><div><br>Fine. Contempt. There seems little further point then=
 in responding to your posts, rhetorical or not.</div><div><br></div><br></=
div><br>

------=_Part_16995_2604595.1143590921234--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C65330.60577DC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am coming from the point of view of:

Historic:
The Rulebook comes out with the current rules.
In the Rulebook will be a copy of Rune and for the last few Rulebooks it has
been Rune 1.1
People expect that the current version of Rune will be in the next Rulebook.
The current version of Rune is 1.1

And now:
A play-test verion of  Rune is up to 2.1.5

I think Errol was asking if we should use the 2.1.5 instead of 1.1
I think Errol also asked if he should put a place holder into the rulebook
(which I take to mean a refernace to the wiki).
I think Errol was asking for peoples views.

Is this the understand that others have?

Jono


------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C65330.60577DC0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I am=20
coming from the point of view of:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Historic:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>The=20
Rulebook comes out with the current rules. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>In the=20
Rulebook will be a copy of Rune and for the last few Rulebooks it has =
been Rune=20
1.1</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>People=20
expect that the current&nbsp;version of Rune will be in the next=20
Rulebook.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>The=20
current version of Rune is 1.1</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>And=20
now:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>A=20
play-test verion&nbsp;of &nbsp;Rune is up to 2.1.5</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
think Errol was asking if we should use the 2.1.5 instead of=20
1.1</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
think Errol also asked if he should put a place holder into the rulebook =
(which=20
I take to mean a refernace to the wiki).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
think Errol was asking for peoples views.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Is=20
this the understand&nbsp;that others&nbsp;have?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Jono</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D259584900-29032006></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C65330.60577DC0--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

<html>

<P>I'm in agreement that Rune 1.1 doesn't&nbsp; add anything to the rulebook beyond pagecount and historical reference.&nbsp; But replacing it with a intermediate version that has yet to be playtested, which 2.1.4 and 2.1.3 at least have, and by the stated objectives of the group who produced it to use it as a brief stepping stone to a vastly different (and doubtless improved) version seems like an odd choice.</P>
<P>If further revised playtest versions are expected to be produced within a few month of&nbsp; the publication, we will be faced with loose-leaf addenda in any case.&nbsp; Having published version that no-one has played and that there is a chance no-one will ever use will cause confusion.</P>
<P>I have the utmost confidence that our players and GMs will survive this confusion, but the printed rules should at least reflect rules that have been used in play at some point, rather than hazy possibilities.&nbsp; Even if you put little store in the authority of the printed record over the agreed convention of play, making purposefully lie seems a little cynical.</P>
<P>Can our "stopped clock" at least have been right once?</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>ben<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>On Wed Mar 29 11:47 , Jonathan Bean - TME &lt;Jonathan@tme.co.nz&gt; sent:<BR>
<BR>
</P></B>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #5167c6 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><DEFANGED_META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"><DEFANGED_META name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528"><DEFANGED_BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN classe1234423-28032006>Martin said:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN classe1234423-28032006><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>Actually no.&nbsp; I'm more concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will make it harder to move to 3.0.</FONT><SPAN classe1234423-28032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN classe1234423-28032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Given that we currently have Rune 1.1 in the rulebook, how will it make it harder?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN classe1234423-28032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN classe1234423-28032006>Jono</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT>&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
</html><BR>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Entirely up to you, Martin.

In the mean time, why not practice a little respect for the readers of the
rulebook, and assume that they can make a distinction between a playtested
college and one that is in play.

Jim
Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Fine. Contempt. There seems little further point then in responding to your
> posts, rhetorical or not.
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C65331.33FB06B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This I agree is the case but please respond to:

Martin said:
Actually no.  I'm more concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will make
it harder to move to 3.0.

Given that we currently have Rune 1.1 in the rulebook, how will it make it
harder?

Jono
  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 12:09 p.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?


  On 3/29/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
    If you read it as anything other than contempt, I can point you to a few
places
    you can brush your English up on.

  Fine. Contempt. There seems little further point then in responding to
your posts, rhetorical or not.






------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C65331.33FB06B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D847550201-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>This I=20
agree is the case but please respond to:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D847550201-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D847550201-29032006>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D651234423-28032006>Martin=20
said:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#000000 size=3D3>Actually no.&nbsp; I'm =
more=20
concerned that having 2.1.5 in the rulebook will make it harder to move =
to=20
3.0.</FONT><SPAN class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Given=20
that we currently have Rune 1.1 in the rulebook, how will it make it=20
harder?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D651234423-28032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D847550201-29032006>Jono</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Martin=20
  Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 29 March 2006 12:09 =
p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for=20
  rulebook?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 3/29/06, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername><A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A></=
B>=20
  &lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A>&g=
t;=20
  wrote:
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote></SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">If=20
    you read it as anything other than contempt, I can point you to a =
few=20
    places<BR>you can brush your English up on. </BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>Fine. Contempt. There seems little further point then in =
responding=20
  to your posts, rhetorical or not.</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV><BR></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C65331.33FB06B0--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Ok heres a question for people?

How many fingers would you cut off your hand to stop Jim ranting at people?

I would give up 2 fingers :-)
Anyone else?

Jono


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Ok I will up it to three finger is he also is not rude to people.

Jono

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Bean - TME
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 1:06 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Jim and how many fingers?
> 
> 
> Ok heres a question for people?
> 
> How many fingers would you cut off your hand to stop Jim ranting 
> at people?
> 
> I would give up 2 fingers :-)
> Anyone else?
> 
> Jono
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

<html>

<P>You're the tough guy, Jono, but remind me never to play 500 with you.</P>
<P>I've got no idea what to lead with you bidding that low.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>bBen<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>On Wed Mar 29 13:26 , Jonathan Bean - TME &lt;Jonathan@tme.co.nz&gt; sent:<BR>
<BR>
</P></B>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #5167c6 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Ok I will up it to three finger is he also is not rude to people.<BR>
<BR>
Jono<BR>
<BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; From: <A href="javascript:top.opencompose('dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz','','','')"><SPAN class=links>dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</SPAN></A> [<A href="javascript:top.opencompose('<a href=" javascript:top.opencompose(?dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz?,??,??,??)?><SPAN class=links>dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</SPAN></A>','','','')"&gt;<SPAN class=links><A href="javascript:top.opencompose('dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz','','','')"><SPAN class=links>dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</SPAN></A></SPAN></A>]On Behalf Of</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; Jonathan Bean - TME</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 1:06 p.m.</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; To: <A href="javascript:top.opencompose('dq@dq.sf.org.nz','','','')"><SPAN class=links>dq@dq.sf.org.nz</SPAN></A></FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Jim and how many fingers?</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; </FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; </FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; Ok heres a question for people?</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; </FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; How many fingers would you cut off your hand to stop Jim ranting </FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; at people?</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; </FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; I would give up 2 fingers :-)</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; Anyone else?</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; </FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; Jono</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; </FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; </FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A href="javascript:top.opencompose('<a href=" javascript:top.opencompose(?dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz?,??,??,??)?><SPAN class=links>dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</SPAN></A>','','','')"&gt;<SPAN class=links><A href="javascript:top.opencompose('dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz','','','')"><SPAN class=links>dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</SPAN></A></SPAN></A> --</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=#004182>&gt;</FONT><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-- to unsubscribe notify <A href="javascript:top.opencompose('<a href=" javascript:top.opencompose(?dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz?,??,??,??)?><SPAN class=links>dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</SPAN></A>','','','')"&gt;<SPAN class=links><A href="javascript:top.opencompose('dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz','','','')"><SPAN class=links>dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</SPAN></A></SPAN></A> --<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</html><BR>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I would rather have your thumbs.

Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>:

> Ok heres a question for people?
>
> How many fingers would you cut off your hand to stop Jim ranting at people?
>
> I would give up 2 fingers :-)
> Anyone else?
>
> Jono
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

dohh!!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 1:50 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Jim and how many fingers?
> 
> 
> I would rather have your thumbs.
> 
> Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>:
> 
> > Ok heres a question for people?
> >
> > How many fingers would you cut off your hand to stop Jim 
> ranting at people?
> >
> > I would give up 2 fingers :-)
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > Jono
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C652D9.123DDBA4
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday 14th below:
Note that at the time I didn't know the planned schedule for Rune 3.0, and
hadn't seen 2.1.5.

To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the Rulebook (I think it has
clear negative value).
I think there are pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter
with some editing changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few
days) in the Rulebook. My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion
(as the version in play changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.

As editor, I would like more people to indicate their preference than have
done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' to follow than currently.

The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would (and does) include a
link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as links to various
related Wiki pages. 
It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would also show the version in
playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, it's not something
the Rune Working Group specifically does).

Cheers
Errol


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Errol Cavit 
> Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 11:31
> To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz'
> Subject: RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
> 
> 
> So, does anyone have an objection to just having a 
> placeholder for Rune in the Rulebook?
> 
> We definitely want at least that (as opposed to dropping it 
> completely), as the Counterspells are still available (and 
> taught to Namers).
> 
> Is it worthwhile having playtest version 2.1.4 (or 2.1.5 if 
> it's been confirmed) in the Rulebook as a resource for 
> non-playtesters that want to see the kind of stuff Rune Mages 
> can do? I suppose if a GM wants to have some Rune wards lying 
> about the place they can prepare what they want available as 
> general (or philosopher) knowledge in advance.
> 
> Cheers
> Errol
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 
> [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen Martin
> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:12
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In essense, yes.
> > 
> > But my first preference is now:
> > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder 
> > stating 'The college is undergoing a
> > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.'
> > 
> > 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On 
> Behalf Of Errol Cavit
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:05
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
> 
> 
> The design notes on the page below are: 
> March 2006 
> The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. 
> Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except 
> Chris Caulfield) at his place to gain agreement on which 
> version of Rune should be in place test. People at the 
> meeting where: Kelsie McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), 
> Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, and Jonathan McSpadden.
> Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because 
> others do not want to). 
> Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune. 
> It was agreed that 2.1.4 would be the standard version in 'playtest'. 
> Version 3.0 is intended to be a major re-write. 
> A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned. 
> 
> 
> 
> Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or 
> perhaps 2.1.5) version in the June 2006 Rulebook? 
> I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and 
> was put on hold partially because it did bad things to the 
> campaign, is there any value in including it? Will 2.1.4 will 
> give new players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result?
> Cheers 
> Errol 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C652D9.123DDBA4
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday =
14th below:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Note that at the time I didn't know the planned =
schedule for Rune 3.0, and hadn't seen 2.1.5.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the =
Rulebook (I think it has clear negative value).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I think there are pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 =
or 2.1.5 (the latter with some editing changes to be done to the =
published PDF in the next few days) in the Rulebook. My _personal_ =
opinion is that the resulting confusion (as the version in play changes =
from it) isn't worth the benefits.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As editor, I would like more people to indicate their =
preference than have done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' =
to follow than currently.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would =
(and does) include a link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well =
as links to various related Wiki pages. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would also =
show the version in playtest (this last requires people to update the =
Wiki, it's not something the Rune Working Group specifically =
does).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Errol Cavit </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 11:31</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: RE: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; So, does anyone have an objection to just =
having a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; placeholder for Rune in the Rulebook?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; We definitely want at least that (as opposed to =
dropping it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; completely), as the Counterspells are still =
available (and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; taught to Namers).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Is it worthwhile having playtest version 2.1.4 =
(or 2.1.5 if </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; it's been confirmed) in the Rulebook as a =
resource for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; non-playtesters that want to see the kind of =
stuff Rune Mages </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; can do? I suppose if a GM wants to have some =
Rune wards lying </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; about the place they can prepare what they want =
available as </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; general (or philosopher) knowledge in =
advance.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Cheers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Errol</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Stephen Martin</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 =
11:12</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; In essense, yes.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; But my first preference is now:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; ...remove the college from the rules and =
leave a placeholder </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; stating 'The college is undergoing =
a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki =
for the latest version.'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Behalf Of Errol Cavit</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:05</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; The design notes on the page below are: </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; March 2006 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune =
mages (except </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Chris Caulfield) at his place to gain agreement =
on which </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; version of Rune should be in place test. People =
at the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; meeting where: Kelsie McArthur, Michael Haycock =
(Surfboard), </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, and Jonathan =
McSpadden.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward =
(because </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; others do not want to). </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to =
2.1.4 of Rune. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; It was agreed that 2.1.4 would be the standard =
version in 'playtest'. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Version 3.0 is intended to be a major re-write. =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and =
another meeting is planned. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Given this, would it be most useful to use the =
2.1.4 (or </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; perhaps 2.1.5) version in the June 2006 =
Rulebook? </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I'm thinking if the old version is not used by =
any PCs, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; was put on hold partially because it did bad =
things to the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; campaign, is there any value in including it? =
Will 2.1.4 will </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; give new players and GMs a better feel of what =
is likely to result?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Cheers </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Errol </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C652D9.123DDBA4--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C65342.CB528E50
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook RecapHi Errol,

Are the options:

1) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current
play (as a set of rules).
2) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'.
3) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the
current 'play test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at
Guild meetings?

Are these the only three options we have?

Jono

  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Errol Cavit
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:33 p.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap


  Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday 14th below:
  Note that at the time I didn't know the planned schedule for Rune 3.0, and
hadn't seen 2.1.5.

  To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the Rulebook (I think it has
clear negative value).
  I think there are pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter
with some editing changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few
days) in the Rulebook. My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion
(as the version in play changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.

  As editor, I would like more people to indicate their preference than have
done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' to follow than currently.

  The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would (and does) include a
link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as links to various
related Wiki pages.

  It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would also show the version in
playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, it's not something
the Rune Working Group specifically does).

  Cheers
  Errol



  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Errol Cavit
  > Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 11:31
  > To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz'
  > Subject: RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
  >
  >
  > So, does anyone have an objection to just having a
  > placeholder for Rune in the Rulebook?
  >
  > We definitely want at least that (as opposed to dropping it
  > completely), as the Counterspells are still available (and
  > taught to Namers).
  >
  > Is it worthwhile having playtest version 2.1.4 (or 2.1.5 if
  > it's been confirmed) in the Rulebook as a resource for
  > non-playtesters that want to see the kind of stuff Rune Mages
  > can do? I suppose if a GM wants to have some Rune wards lying
  > about the place they can prepare what they want available as
  > general (or philosopher) knowledge in advance.
  >
  > Cheers
  > Errol
  >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz
  > [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
  > > Stephen Martin
  > > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:12
  > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  > > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > In essense, yes.
  > >
  > > But my first preference is now:
  > > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder
  > > stating 'The college is undergoing a
  > > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.'
  > >
  > >

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On
  > Behalf Of Errol Cavit
  > Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:05
  > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
  >
  >
  > The design notes on the page below are:
  > March 2006
  > The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted.
  > Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except
  > Chris Caulfield) at his place to gain agreement on which
  > version of Rune should be in place test. People at the
  > meeting where: Kelsie McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard),
  > Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, and Jonathan McSpadden.
  > Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because
  > others do not want to).
  > Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune.
  > It was agreed that 2.1.4 would be the standard version in 'playtest'.
  > Version 3.0 is intended to be a major re-write.
  > A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned.
  >
  >
  >
  > Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or
  > perhaps 2.1.5) version in the June 2006 Rulebook?
  > I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and
  > was put on hold partially because it did bad things to the
  > campaign, is there any value in including it? Will 2.1.4 will
  > give new players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result?
  > Cheers
  > Errol

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C65342.CB528E50
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook =
Recap</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Hi=20
Errol,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Are=20
the&nbsp;options:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>1)=20
Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current =
play (as a=20
set of rules).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>2)=20
Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test=20
version'.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>3) A=20
holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the current =
'play=20
test version' of Rune. Printed copies may&nbsp;also be given out at =
Guild=20
meetings?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Are=20
these the only three options we have?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Jono</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D149300303-29032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Errol =
Cavit<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:33 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook=20
  Recap<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday =
14th=20
  below:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Note that at the time I didn't know =
the planned=20
  schedule for Rune 3.0, and hadn't seen 2.1.5.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the =
Rulebook (I=20
  think it has clear negative value).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>I think =
there are=20
  pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter with some =
editing=20
  changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few days) in the =
Rulebook.=20
  My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion (as the version =
in play=20
  changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>As editor, I would like more people to indicate =
their=20
  preference than have done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' =
to=20
  follow than currently.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would =
(and=20
  does) include a link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as =
links to=20
  various related Wiki pages. </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would =
also show the=20
  version in playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, =
it's not=20
  something the Rune Working Group specifically does).</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Errol</FONT> =
</P><BR>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  From: Errol Cavit </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Sent: Friday, 24 =
March 2006=20
  11:31</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz'</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; Subject: RE: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook?</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; So, does anyone have an objection to just having a=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; placeholder for Rune in the =
Rulebook?</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; We definitely =
want at least=20
  that (as opposed to dropping it </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
completely), as=20
  the Counterspells are still available (and </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; taught=20
  to Namers).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; Is it=20
  worthwhile having playtest version 2.1.4 (or 2.1.5 if </FONT><BR><FONT =

  size=3D2>&gt; it's been confirmed) in the Rulebook as a resource for=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; non-playtesters that want to see the =
kind of=20
  stuff Rune Mages </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; can do? I suppose if a =
GM wants=20
  to have some Rune wards lying </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; about the =
place=20
  they can prepare what they want available as </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  general (or philosopher) knowledge in advance.</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
Errol</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; =
-----Original=20
  Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; From: =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; [<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On=
 Behalf=20
  Of</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Stephen Martin</FONT> <BR><FONT =

  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:12</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; In essense, =
yes.</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; But =
my first=20
  preference is now:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; ...remove the =
college=20
  from the rules and leave a placeholder </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  stating 'The college is undergoing a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
&gt; rewrite=20
  and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.'</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On=
=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Behalf Of Errol Cavit</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:05</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] =
Which Rune=20
  version for rulebook?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; The design notes on the =
page below=20
  are: </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; March 2006 </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; The=20
  stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; Jono=20
  Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except </FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; Chris Caulfield) at his place to gain agreement on which =

  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; version of Rune should be in place =
test. People=20
  at the </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; meeting where: Kelsie McArthur, =
Michael=20
  Haycock (Surfboard), </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Dean Ellis, Julia =
McSpadden,=20
  and Jonathan McSpadden.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Jono Bean is =
the=20
  currently driving this forward (because </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
others do=20
  not want to). </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Kelsie took notes of =
changes that=20
  are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune. </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; It was =
agreed that=20
  2.1.4 would be the standard version in 'playtest'. </FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; Version 3.0 is intended to be a major re-write. =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another =
meeting is=20
  planned. </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =

  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Given =
this, would it=20
  be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
perhaps=20
  2.1.5) version in the June 2006 Rulebook? </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; I'm=20
  thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; was put on hold partially because it did bad things to =
the=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; campaign, is there any value in =
including it?=20
  Will 2.1.4 will </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; give new players and =
GMs a better=20
  feel of what is likely to result?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
Cheers=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Errol =
</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C65342.CB528E50--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

--0-1553982302-1143601992=:13573
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I'd personally like to see 2.15 in the book.
Any versions coming out that start with 2.xx are likely to have some relation to 2.15 and people can pen in changes rather than having to carry the entire latest college due to it's large change from 1.1.
It's going to have a clear note it's a playtest college and it gives people some idea what the current look of the college is likely to be without having to get online, so they can decide if they are interested or not and then check up the exact details on the wiki.

I'd also like to see a reference to the wiki Rune page, so that people know where to go to keep an eye on the latest playtest changes.

Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote:     RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap    Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday 14th below: 
Note that at the time I didn't know the planned schedule for Rune 3.0, and hadn't seen 2.1.5. 
  To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the Rulebook (I think it has clear negative value). 
I think there are pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter with some editing changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few days) in the Rulebook. My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion (as the version in play changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.
  As editor, I would like more people to indicate their preference than have done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' to follow than currently.
  The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would (and does) include a link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as links to various related Wiki pages. 
  It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would also show the version in playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, it's not something the Rune Working Group specifically does).
  Cheers 
Errol 
 
  > -----Original Message----- 
> From: Errol Cavit  
> Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 11:31 
> To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz' 
> Subject: RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook? 
>  
>  
> So, does anyone have an objection to just having a  
> placeholder for Rune in the Rulebook? 
>  
> We definitely want at least that (as opposed to dropping it  
> completely), as the Counterspells are still available (and  
> taught to Namers). 
>  
> Is it worthwhile having playtest version 2.1.4 (or 2.1.5 if  
> it's been confirmed) in the Rulebook as a resource for  
> non-playtesters that want to see the kind of stuff Rune Mages  
> can do? I suppose if a GM wants to have some Rune wards lying  
> about the place they can prepare what they want available as  
> general (or philosopher) knowledge in advance. 
>  
> Cheers 
> Errol 
>  
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz  
> [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of 
> > Stephen Martin 
> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:12 
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz 
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook? 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > In essense, yes. 
> >  
> > But my first preference is now: 
> > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder  
> > stating 'The college is undergoing a 
> > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.' 
> >  
> >  
  > -----Original Message----- 
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On  
> Behalf Of Errol Cavit 
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:05 
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz 
> Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook? 
>  
>  
> The design notes on the page below are:  
> March 2006  
> The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted.  
> Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except  
> Chris Caulfield) at his place to gain agreement on which  
> version of Rune should be in place test. People at the  
> meeting where: Kelsie McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard),  
> Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, and Jonathan McSpadden. 
> Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because  
> others do not want to).  
> Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune.  
> It was agreed that 2.1.4 would be the standard version in 'playtest'.  
> Version 3.0 is intended to be a major re-write.  
> A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned.  
>  
>  
>  
> Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or  
> perhaps 2.1.5) version in the June 2006 Rulebook?  
> I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and  
> was put on hold partially because it did bad things to the  
> campaign, is there any value in including it? Will 2.1.4 will  
> give new players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result? 
> Cheers  
> Errol  
  


From Bernard Hoggins
nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
		
---------------------------------
On Yahoo!7
  Messenger: Make free PC-to-PC calls to your friends overseas. 
--0-1553982302-1143601992=:13573
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I'd personally like to see 2.15 in the book.<br>Any versions coming out that start with 2.xx are likely to have some relation to 2.15 and people can pen in changes rather than having to carry the entire latest college due to it's large change from 1.1.<br>It's going to have a clear note it's a playtest college and it gives people some idea what the current look of the college is likely to be without having to get online, so they can decide if they are interested or not and then check up the exact details on the wiki.<br><br>I'd also like to see a reference to the wiki Rune page, so that people know where to go to keep an eye on the latest playtest changes.<br><br><b><i>Errol Cavit &lt;ecavit@tollnz.co.nz&gt;</i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name="Generator" content="MS Exchange Server version
 5.5.2658.2"><title>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap</title>    <div><font size="2">Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday 14th below:</font> <br><font size="2">Note that at the time I didn't know the planned schedule for Rune 3.0, and hadn't seen 2.1.5.</font> </div>  <div><font size="2">To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the Rulebook (I think it has clear negative value).</font> <br><font size="2">I think there are pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter with some editing changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few days) in the Rulebook. My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion (as the version in play changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.</font></div>  <div><font size="2">As editor, I would like more people to indicate their preference than have done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' to follow than currently.</font></div>  <div><font size="2">The Wiki page referred to would be
 'Rune', and would (and does) include a link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as links to various related Wiki pages. </font></div>  <div><font size="2">It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would also show the version in playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, it's not something the Rune Working Group specifically does).</font></div>  <div><font size="2">Cheers</font> <br><font size="2">Errol</font> </div> <br>  <div><font size="2">&gt; -----Original Message-----</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; From: Errol Cavit </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 11:31</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz'</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Subject: RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; So, does anyone have an objection to just having a </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; placeholder for Rune in the Rulebook?</font> <br><font
 size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; We definitely want at least that (as opposed to dropping it </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; completely), as the Counterspells are still available (and </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; taught to Namers).</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Is it worthwhile having playtest version 2.1.4 (or 2.1.5 if </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; it's been confirmed) in the Rulebook as a resource for </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; non-playtesters that want to see the kind of stuff Rune Mages </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; can do? I suppose if a GM wants to have some Rune wards lying </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; about the place they can prepare what they want available as </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; general (or philosopher) knowledge in advance.</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Cheers</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Errol</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt;
 &gt; -----Original Message-----</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; [<a href="mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>]On Behalf Of</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; Stephen Martin</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:12</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; In essense, yes.</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; But my first preference is now:</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; stating 'The college is undergoing a</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; rewrite and playtest, refer to
 the Wiki for the latest version.'</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; &gt; </font> </div>  <div><font size="2">&gt; -----Original Message-----</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<a href="mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>]On </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Behalf Of Errol Cavit</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:05</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; The design notes on the page below are: </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; March 2006 </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Chris Caulfield) at his place to gain agreement
 on which </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; version of Rune should be in place test. People at the </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; meeting where: Kelsie McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, and Jonathan McSpadden.</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; others do not want to). </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune. </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; It was agreed that 2.1.4 would be the standard version in 'playtest'. </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Version 3.0 is intended to be a major re-write. </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned. </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or
 </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; perhaps 2.1.5) version in the June 2006 Rulebook? </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; was put on hold partially because it did bad things to the </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; campaign, is there any value in including it? Will 2.1.4 will </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; give new players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result?</font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Cheers </font> <br><font size="2">&gt; Errol </font> </div>  </blockquote><br><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<br>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<p>
		<hr size=1>On Yahoo!7<br> 
<a href="http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tag/**http%3A%2F%2Fau.messenger.yahoo.com%2F"> 
Messenger: Make free PC-to-PC calls to your friends overseas.</a> 

--0-1553982302-1143601992=:13573--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C65343.2FD8CF10
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook RecapHi Errol,

Are the options:

1) No vote
2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current
play (as a set of rules).
3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'.
4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the
current 'play test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at
Guild meetings?

Are these the only four options we have?

Jono
  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Errol Cavit
  Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:33 p.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap


  Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday 14th below:
  Note that at the time I didn't know the planned schedule for Rune 3.0, and
hadn't seen 2.1.5.

  To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the Rulebook (I think it has
clear negative value).
  I think there are pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter
with some editing changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few
days) in the Rulebook. My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion
(as the version in play changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.

  As editor, I would like more people to indicate their preference than have
done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' to follow than currently.

  The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would (and does) include a
link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as links to various
related Wiki pages.

  It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would also show the version in
playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, it's not something
the Rune Working Group specifically does).

  Cheers
  Errol



  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Errol Cavit
  > Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 11:31
  > To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz'
  > Subject: RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
  >
  >
  > So, does anyone have an objection to just having a
  > placeholder for Rune in the Rulebook?
  >
  > We definitely want at least that (as opposed to dropping it
  > completely), as the Counterspells are still available (and
  > taught to Namers).
  >
  > Is it worthwhile having playtest version 2.1.4 (or 2.1.5 if
  > it's been confirmed) in the Rulebook as a resource for
  > non-playtesters that want to see the kind of stuff Rune Mages
  > can do? I suppose if a GM wants to have some Rune wards lying
  > about the place they can prepare what they want available as
  > general (or philosopher) knowledge in advance.
  >
  > Cheers
  > Errol
  >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz
  > [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
  > > Stephen Martin
  > > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:12
  > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  > > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > In essense, yes.
  > >
  > > But my first preference is now:
  > > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder
  > > stating 'The college is undergoing a
  > > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.'
  > >
  > >

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On
  > Behalf Of Errol Cavit
  > Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:05
  > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
  >
  >
  > The design notes on the page below are:
  > March 2006
  > The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted.
  > Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except
  > Chris Caulfield) at his place to gain agreement on which
  > version of Rune should be in place test. People at the
  > meeting where: Kelsie McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard),
  > Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, and Jonathan McSpadden.
  > Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because
  > others do not want to).
  > Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune.
  > It was agreed that 2.1.4 would be the standard version in 'playtest'.
  > Version 3.0 is intended to be a major re-write.
  > A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned.
  >
  >
  >
  > Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or
  > perhaps 2.1.5) version in the June 2006 Rulebook?
  > I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and
  > was put on hold partially because it did bad things to the
  > campaign, is there any value in including it? Will 2.1.4 will
  > give new players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result?
  > Cheers
  > Errol

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C65343.2FD8CF10
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook =
Recap</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Hi =
Errol,<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Are the=20
options:<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D852521103-29032006>1) No vote</SPAN>&nbsp;<BR><SPAN=20
class=3D852521103-29032006>2</SPAN>) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as =
the current=20
Rune version in current play (as a set of rules).<BR><SPAN=20
class=3D852521103-29032006>3</SPAN>) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as =
the=20
current 'play test version'.<BR><SPAN =
class=3D852521103-29032006>4</SPAN>) A=20
holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the current =
'play=20
test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at Guild=20
meetings?<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Are these the only&nbsp;<SPAN=20
class=3D852521103-29032006>four</SPAN> options we=20
have?<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Jono</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Errol =
Cavit<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:33 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook=20
  Recap<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday =
14th=20
  below:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Note that at the time I didn't know =
the planned=20
  schedule for Rune 3.0, and hadn't seen 2.1.5.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the =
Rulebook (I=20
  think it has clear negative value).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>I think =
there are=20
  pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter with some =
editing=20
  changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few days) in the =
Rulebook.=20
  My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion (as the version =
in play=20
  changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>As editor, I would like more people to indicate =
their=20
  preference than have done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' =
to=20
  follow than currently.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would =
(and=20
  does) include a link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as =
links to=20
  various related Wiki pages. </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would =
also show the=20
  version in playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, =
it's not=20
  something the Rune Working Group specifically does).</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Errol</FONT> =
</P><BR>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  From: Errol Cavit </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Sent: Friday, 24 =
March 2006=20
  11:31</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz'</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; Subject: RE: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook?</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; So, does anyone have an objection to just having a=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; placeholder for Rune in the =
Rulebook?</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; We definitely =
want at least=20
  that (as opposed to dropping it </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
completely), as=20
  the Counterspells are still available (and </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; taught=20
  to Namers).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; Is it=20
  worthwhile having playtest version 2.1.4 (or 2.1.5 if </FONT><BR><FONT =

  size=3D2>&gt; it's been confirmed) in the Rulebook as a resource for=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; non-playtesters that want to see the =
kind of=20
  stuff Rune Mages </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; can do? I suppose if a =
GM wants=20
  to have some Rune wards lying </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; about the =
place=20
  they can prepare what they want available as </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  general (or philosopher) knowledge in advance.</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
Errol</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; =
-----Original=20
  Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; From: =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; [<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On=
 Behalf=20
  Of</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Stephen Martin</FONT> <BR><FONT =

  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:12</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; In essense, =
yes.</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; But =
my first=20
  preference is now:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; ...remove the =
college=20
  from the rules and leave a placeholder </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  stating 'The college is undergoing a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
&gt; rewrite=20
  and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.'</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On=
=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Behalf Of Errol Cavit</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:05</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] =
Which Rune=20
  version for rulebook?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; The design notes on the =
page below=20
  are: </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; March 2006 </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; The=20
  stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; Jono=20
  Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except </FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; Chris Caulfield) at his place to gain agreement on which =

  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; version of Rune should be in place =
test. People=20
  at the </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; meeting where: Kelsie McArthur, =
Michael=20
  Haycock (Surfboard), </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Dean Ellis, Julia =
McSpadden,=20
  and Jonathan McSpadden.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Jono Bean is =
the=20
  currently driving this forward (because </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
others do=20
  not want to). </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Kelsie took notes of =
changes that=20
  are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune. </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; It was =
agreed that=20
  2.1.4 would be the standard version in 'playtest'. </FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; Version 3.0 is intended to be a major re-write. =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another =
meeting is=20
  planned. </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =

  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Given =
this, would it=20
  be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
perhaps=20
  2.1.5) version in the June 2006 Rulebook? </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>&gt; I'm=20
  thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&gt; was put on hold partially because it did bad things to =
the=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; campaign, is there any value in =
including it?=20
  Will 2.1.4 will </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; give new players and =
GMs a better=20
  feel of what is likely to result?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
Cheers=20
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Errol =
</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C65343.2FD8CF10--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C652E6.101FFB88
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Options as I see them are:
 
1) No vote -  an indication that you don't care, and are happy to let other
decide what to do.
2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current
play (as a set of rules).- with a strong warning that GMs probably won't let
you play this version etc and probably a link to Wiki
3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'. -
with link to Wiki page to get latest version and update on status of
playtest.
4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the
current 'play test version' of Rune and update on status of playtest.
 
 
Printed copies may also be given out at Guild meetings on request to DQ list
(or the Wiki Rune page if someone is prepared to commit to monitoring this
before meetings). In practice, those without direct easy access to the
web/email and a printer (for 5 pages of printout) themselves generally
should be able to get someone else in their party to print it out or
photocopy it for them.
 
Cheers
Errol
 
PS I suggest providing the DQ Wiki url and page name (the page having an
external link to the PDF at the top) as the address
http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/
<http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/>  and the page 'Rune' should be
stable over the next couple of years, while wherever the PDF is hosted is
more likely to change.


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean - TME
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 15:12
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap


Hi Errol,
 
Are the options:

1) No vote 
2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current
play (as a set of rules).
3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'.
4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the
current 'play test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at
Guild meetings?
 
Are these the only four options we have?
 
Jono

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Errol
Cavit
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:33 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap



Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday 14th below: 
Note that at the time I didn't know the planned schedule for Rune 3.0, and
hadn't seen 2.1.5. 

To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the Rulebook (I think it has
clear negative value). 
I think there are pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter
with some editing changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few
days) in the Rulebook. My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion
(as the version in play changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.

As editor, I would like more people to indicate their preference than have
done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' to follow than currently.

The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would (and does) include a
link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as links to various
related Wiki pages. 

It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would also show the version in
playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, it's not something
the Rune Working Group specifically does).

Cheers 
Errol 


------_=_NextPart_001_01C652E6.101FFB88
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006>Options as I see them are:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=122501703-29032006><SPAN 
class=852521103-29032006>1) No vote</SPAN>&nbsp;-&nbsp; an indication that you 
don't care, and are happy to let other decide what to do.<BR><SPAN 
class=852521103-29032006>2</SPAN>) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current 
Rune version in current play (as a set of rules).- with a strong warning that 
GMs probably won't let you play this version etc and probably a link to 
Wiki<BR><SPAN class=852521103-29032006>3</SPAN>) Rune 2.1.5 into the new 
rulebook as the current 'play test version'. - with link to Wiki page to get 
latest version and update on status of playtest.<BR><SPAN 
class=852521103-29032006>4</SPAN>) A holder page without Rune details saying 
look at the wiki for the current 'play test version' of Rune and update on 
status of playtest.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2><SPAN class=122501703-29032006></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=122501703-29032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006>Printed copies may also be given out at Guild meetings 
on request to DQ list&nbsp;(or the&nbsp;Wiki Rune page if someone is prepared to 
commit to monitoring this before meetings). In practice, those without direct 
easy access to the web/email and a printer (for 5 pages of printout) themselves 
generally should be able to get someone else in their party to print it out or 
photocopy it for them.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006>Cheers</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006>Errol</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=122501703-29032006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=122501703-29032006>PS I 
suggest providing the DQ Wiki url and page name (the page having an external 
link to the PDF at the top) as the address <A 
href="http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/</A> 
and the page 'Rune' should be stable over the next couple of years, while 
wherever the PDF is hosted is more likely to change.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of</B> Jonathan Bean - 
  TME<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 29 March 2006 15:12<BR><B>To:</B> 
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook 
  Recap<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hi Errol,<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Are the 
  options:<BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN 
  class=852521103-29032006>1) No vote</SPAN>&nbsp;<BR><SPAN 
  class=852521103-29032006>2</SPAN>) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the 
  current Rune version in current play (as a set of rules).<BR><SPAN 
  class=852521103-29032006>3</SPAN>) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the 
  current 'play test version'.<BR><SPAN class=852521103-29032006>4</SPAN>) A 
  holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the current 'play 
  test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at Guild 
  meetings?<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Are these the only&nbsp;<SPAN 
  class=852521103-29032006>four</SPAN> options we 
  have?<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Jono</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
  style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 
    [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Errol 
    Cavit<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:33 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B> 
    dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook 
    Recap<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <P><FONT size=2>Re-post of my messages of Friday 24th and Tuesday 14th 
    below:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Note that at the time I didn't know the 
    planned schedule for Rune 3.0, and hadn't seen 2.1.5.</FONT> </P>
    <P><FONT size=2>To recap, I think Rune 1.1 shouldn't be in the Rulebook (I 
    think it has clear negative value).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>I think there 
    are pluses and minuses to having 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 (the latter with some 
    editing changes to be done to the published PDF in the next few days) in the 
    Rulebook. My _personal_ opinion is that the resulting confusion (as the 
    version in play changes from it) isn't worth the benefits.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT size=2>As editor, I would like more people to indicate their 
    preference than have done so to date, so I have clearer 'instructions' to 
    follow than currently.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT size=2>The Wiki page referred to would be 'Rune', and would (and 
    does) include a link to a PDF of the version in playtest, as well as links 
    to various related Wiki pages. </FONT></P>
    <P><FONT size=2>It's very likely that the Wiki page itself would also show 
    the version in playtest (this last requires people to update the Wiki, it's 
    not something the Rune Working Group specifically does).</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT size=2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Errol</FONT> 
</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C652E6.101FFB88--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

If  v3.0 is going to be close to the 2.1.5  in style and mechanics I'm all
for it being in the new rule book.
Exact spells don't matter too much, collage Flavour does.
As I understand it 1.1 is a big bundle of pre prepared sticks, which  you
wander around with.
2.1.5 Looks to be a single staff or wand with an few pre preped runes and
some way to mark others at spell cast or ritual time.

Thats a change in mechanics and style,  and having it in the rule book means
its avaible to give new players and GMs who don't spend all day reading
rules or changes to them an idea of the differance between a  rune Mage and
a fire or E&E or witch, which  is important.

When I'm GMing off the cuff like I am this session I often end up looking up
in the rule book some spell I want now for an NPC that I didn't have or know
I needed before the session started.
Quitely looking up the spell in a book isn't disruptive, and doesn't give
away to the players what your up to the way getting out your printed copy of
rune might.
If the version is out dated so what, unless the spell has been completely
removed its probably only a minor change or tweak.

Besides I think those working on the rune collage are being optomistic I
don't beleave you can properly play test any version of any rule change in
under a year.
So by the time they get 3.0 sorted it will be rule booktime again.

And then there is the danger of the problem we had with play testing
thief..... it seemed to me it was being changed every session until it got
to the point of  "so what version are we supposed to be voting on"
At least with some thing in the book I can say "until I say other wise we
play this" and since verson 1.1 has by common agreement been broken for many
years putting in the play test verson 2.1.5 has got to be better.

 Helen


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C652F7.5FFDB4E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Helen Saggers [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 18:26
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Rune

<snip>
> 
> Besides I think those working on the rune collage are being 
> optomistic I
> don't beleave you can properly play test any version of any 
> rule change in
> under a year.
> So by the time they get 3.0 sorted it will be rule booktime again.
> 


Point of Information
Recent Rulebook timings:
September 2001
June 2004
June 2006

There is nothing regular about the timing in practice, other than 'no more
often than one a year'.

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C652F7.5FFDB4E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Rune</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: Helen Saggers [<A HREF="mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz">mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 18:26</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: [dq] Rune</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Besides I think those working on the rune collage are being </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; optomistic I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; don't beleave you can properly play test any version of any </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; rule change in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; under a year.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; So by the time they get 3.0 sorted it will be rule booktime again.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Point of Information</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Recent Rulebook timings:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>September 2001</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>June 2004</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>June 2006</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>There is nothing regular about the timing in practice, other than 'no more often than one a year'.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Cheers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C652F7.5FFDB4E0--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

RE: [dq] Rune
There is nothing regular about the timing in practice, other than 'no more
often than one a year'.
Cheers
Errol

I beleave we voted to remove a certain broken mind collage spell on the spot
and not at rule book time.
Things don't have to wait on a new rule book.

If we don't do another new rule book until 2010 the final version of Rune
just gets a good long play test and no probation. But I think given the
track record of such rule changes those working on the rune collage will be
rushing to finish in time for the next rule book. weather its in 1 year or 3
or 4 from now.

Helen


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On 29/03/2006, at 16:05, Errol Cavit wrote:

> Options as I see them are:
>
> 1) No vote -  an indication that you don't care, and are happy to  
> let other decide what to do.
> 2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in  
> current play (as a set of rules).- with a strong warning that GMs  
> probably won't let you play this version etc and probably a link to  
> Wiki
> 3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test  
> version'. - with link to Wiki page to get latest version and update  
> on status of playtest.
> 4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for  
> the current 'play test version' of Rune and update on status of  
> playtest.

I vote for 3,

cheers,

clare

(OMG did you hear - GoK is pacted to Varda now - people will start  
associating me with him!)


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --